Does "reconciliation" apply to the public option?

[Becky72]

I am not sure as to whether the process of "reconciliation," that is, gathering 51 votes to pass a bill, can be used to pass the "public option" aspect of the current health reform bills in Congress.

Reconciliation is said to be valid for "budget" issues only. Democrats can certainly pass a lot of things within the bills using this tactic. But is the public option one of them?

A New York Times editorial today says that "Even the public plan so reviled by Republicans could probably qualify," so the NYT thinks it can pass, but the "probably" doesn't signal a very strong degree of certainty in my opinion.

What are the odds and who will determine this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/opinion/30sun1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

[Selatius]

1. Reconciliation typically is only used on budgetary bills, but the definition of "budget" is broad.

Any major change in federal law or pre-existing law would necessarily require some amount of money to enforce or establish. Using that fact, most major bills could be "reconciled." The process has been rarely used to avoid politicization; otherwise, everybody would be using reconciliation the second they get a 51 seat majority...like George W. Bush and his stooges on Capitol Hill often did to get by Democrats.

[Avalux]

2. Yes it applies to the Public Option.

A way to do it is split the massive bill up into two parts - the 'reform' part for health insurance cos - getting rid of pre-existing conditions etc. that some Pukes will vote; get 60 votes. Then pass a second bill for the public option with reconcilation, 51 votes.

[quiller4]

4. You are correct.

[Becky72]

6. Apparently, it will be up to a man named Alan Frumin

The NYT editorial says that it is up to the "Senate Parlamentarian" to decide which portions of the bill apply. And right now the man holding that position is Alan Frumin, a New York-born figure. Here's his Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Frumin and here's more about the duties of the Senate Parliamentarian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentarian_of_the_United_States_Senate#Reconciliation

[kentuck]

3. I'm not sure...

I thought if there was more spending involved, it could not go thru reconciliation? Good question.

[pinto]

5. Not sure. It's a fairly convoluted set of conditions. COBRA was passed

as a budget reconciliation action. (The acronym means Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.) This would seem to be in the same ballpark.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. Of course it applies to the public option.

Because the public option would result in massive public expenditures. Therefore, it is a budget issue. I personally believe that this is the primary reason why the Republicans have gone to such insane extents (rumors of death panels, etc) to prevent its inclusion.

[Becky72]

8. Kevin Drum and Ezra Klein aren't sure

I've been searching, and Ezra Klein, progressive write for the American Prospect and Kevin Drum of MotherJones don't have a conclusive answer.

Drum: Stan Collender is a serious budget wonk of many years' standing, but it turns out that even he really doesn't have any idea: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/08/60-votes

Klein: "But is regulating insurers "merely incidental" to government revenues? How about reforming hospital delivery systems? How about incentives for preventive treatment? Or the construction of a public plan? An individual mandate?

It's hard to say. The ultimate decision is left up to the Senate parliamentarian, whose rulings are unpredictable."

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_fifty_vote_senate